Why can suggested edits be "too minor"?

Question

I just edited someone's post so that it would be more readable. Basically, I just added some line breaks and spaces into their sql code so that it now takes a reader about 5 seconds to comprehend what the query is doing instead of 50.

It was rejected on the basis that the edit was too minor. I respect that decision in that if there's a rule that minor edits should be rejected then they were following that rule. I am just curious to know why that is a hard rule. Is it just to prevent having too many edits?

Answer 1

As a frequent decliner of edits, I'd actually say that one was worth approving in this specific circumstance.

A lot of edit suggestions are formatting-only. While there is no harm in correcting formatting, usually there are other problems that can be corrected at the same time.

The answer is actually pretty horrible, quality-wise. It's "try this:" and a code dump, without explaining what makes it a valid solution or how it differs from the code in the question. Other than formatting, the only thing that could be improved in this answer would be explaining the what and the how.

An ideal edit to this answer would add that explanation. However, that would be quite a bit of effort, and should have been something done by the poster, not by some later random editor.

Answer 2

One reason why some edits are rejected as "too minor":

Reviewing suggested edits is boring, thankless work. Approving edits nets the editor 2 rep, and sends the message that their efforts are appreciated. For example, when people take the time to fix one typo but not the other 12, it becomes a waste of time for the reviewer for a relatively insignificant improvement to the post.

In your specific case, I'd say it's borderline. There wasn't much to "correct", and perhaps your choice of formatting wasn't ideal. I personally find the original form more readable; if for no other reason - because it doesn't force a scroll bar on the code block and everything is visible (the suggested edit page shows it on both, see actual post for reference).

Answer 3

I reject a lot of suggested edits as too minor.

Usually, I do that because the editor ignores lots of other problems. The text next to the "too minor" button is:

This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

(emphasis mine). So if I see a suggested edit where the post has 4 problems, and the edit only fixes one, I'm probably going to reject that. The editor shouldn't be lazy and ignore the other issues, especially if they're going to get rewarded. Also, if lazy, incomplete edits are often rewarded, then we can only expect to have many more lazy, incomplete edits in the future.

I wouldn't say it's a "hard rule"; it's very subjective and varies from reviewer to reviewer.

In your case, though, it seems there's nothing else in the post to edit! Just get your rep up to 2000 (or 2500 or 3000, I forget) and you won't have to go through this anymore.